In communication networks with multiple internal participants, including but not limited to those in larger companies, communication with external partners such as business partners, customers, etc. is often confusing. External persons can exploit this by means of targeted verbal or written approaches to different potential internal contact partners, in order to gain some advantages based on different and potentially inconsistent replies. In conventional communication systems, an external person E may communicate with several internal persons A, B, C, or conversely several internal persons may communicate with the same external person E, without the internal persons A, B, C, . . . knowing of each other or of their communication with the external person E. Thus, the external person E may receive differing and uncoordinated pieces of information. It is therefore easy for the external person E to exploit this situation by, for example, sending inquiries as separate electronic messages (e-mails or the like) separately to persons A, B, C.
Such an arrangement is illustrated in FIG. 3. FIG. 3 shows a mail server 100 of a company network for a company XYZ that is connected to the internet 102 via not-illustrated means such as a gateway or the like. The mail server 100 manages a mailbox 104 that is accessible by a mail client 106. The mail client 106 may be set up on a workstation for which a person 108 (person A) has a user profile. Instead of being set up on a workstation, the mail client 106 can also be set up on a smartphone, tablet or laptop computer or another such device. Below, mailbox 104 will also be referred to as the mailbox of person A because it is set up exclusively for and assigned to person A (108). Mailbox 104 can be addressed from the outside via the Internet 102, for example by using the address personA@companyXYZ.com. Likewise, the mail server 100 manages a mailbox 110, which can be accessed by a mail client 112 of a person 114 (person B), and which can be addressed, for example, using the address personB@companyXYZ.com and a mailbox 116, which can be accessed by a mail client 118 of a person 120 (person C), and which can be addressed, for example, using the address personC@companyXYZ.com. An external person 122 (person E) has access to a mail server 124 with a mailbox 126 via not-illustrated means, which can be addressed, for example, using the address personE@memberServer.net. In the shown situation, person E sends three messages N1, N2, N3 via the internet using server 124 and using the addresses of the mailboxes 104, 110, 116 of the internal persons A, B, C. The messages N1, N2, N3 are received in the mail server 100 and assigned to or deposited in the mailboxes 104, 110, 116. i.e., message N1 is deposited in mailbox 104 of person A, message N2 in mailbox 110 of person B and message N3 in mailbox 116 of person B. Person B replies to message N2 with a message N4.
FIGS. 4A to 4C show the situation from the perspective of persons A, B, C, or more precisely the perspective of person A on a message list (postbox) 105 of mailbox 104 illustrated by mail client 106, the perspective of person B on a message list (postbox) 111 of mailbox 110 illustrated by mail client 112 and the perspective of person C on a message list (postbox) 117 of mailbox 116 illustrated by mail client 118. As illustrated in FIG. 4A, only the message N1 addressed to person A appears in the message list 111 of person A; as illustrated in FIG. 4B, only the message N2 addressed to person B as well as the response of person B, message N4, to the external person E appears in the message list 105 of person B; and as illustrated in FIG. 4C, only the message N3 addressed to person C appears in the message list 117 of person C. Thus, persons A, B, C have no knowledge of the fact that the respective other two persons were sent a message and neither person A nor C can see the reply N4 of person B.
To work around this problems, various work-around solutions have been employed to date. FIG. 5 illustrates a case where a central mailbox 128 is set up in the previously described mail server 100 and can be addressed via the internet 102 from the outside using the address Zentrale@companyXYZ.com. Furthermore, an internal area 130 is defined in which the person-related mailboxes 104, 110, 116 of persons A, B, C are set up. The internal area 130 cannot be addressed from the outside via the internet; rather the mailboxes 104, 110, 116 serve only the internal communication inside the company XYZ. Different from FIG. 3, the mail clients 106, 112, 118 of persons A, B, C not only have access to their own mailboxes 104, 110, 116 but also at least read access to the central mailbox 128, i.e., all internal persons A, B, C can read a message N5 that has been directed via the Internet to the central mailbox 128 and deposited there. In this arrangement, messages directed from the outside to the internal mailboxes 104, 110, 116 are rejected. Alternatively, messages directed from the outside to the internal mailboxes 104, 110, 116 can also go to the central mailbox 128; however, this may not be desirable due to privacy issues of persons A, B, C. Messages directed to the outside can be provided with the identification of the central mailbox 128 such that the personal mailboxes 104, 110, 116 remain hidden to the outside.
Such a solution according to FIG. 5 can be perceived as impersonal by external persons such as person E and can be an obstacle to establishing contact. Instead of a central mailbox, several group mailboxes may be set up for different departments or work groups within the company XYZ and may be visible to a limited number of people. However, aside from the increased management effort for assigning access rights, the problem of an impersonal appearance toward the outside remains essentially the same. In addition, it is difficult for outsiders to assign the correct group address when attempting to contact a certain person inside company XYZ.
In a variation of the solution described above and illustrated in FIG. 6, the central mailbox 128 is managed additionally by an administrative entity 132 that can be accessed by a manager 136 (person M) via a management client 134, which is set up as a workstation, for example. Forwarding of messages that have arrived at the central mailbox 128 via the internet 102, for example, is coordinated centrally via the administrative entity 132, i.e., the management client 132 and/or the administrator 136 decide to which internal mailbox 104, 110 and/or 116 a message N6 shall be forwarded based on message header elements or contents of the incoming message N6. Although this solution protects the privacy of persons A, B, C in relation to each other, it is just as impersonal to the outside and requires great expenditure in personnel and a high degree of alertness, since this cannot always be automated.
FIG. 7 shows a similar system in which multiple group mailboxes 138, 140,142, 144 are set up that can be addressed from the outside via the Internet 102 using their respective group e-mail address such as info@companyXYZ.com, support@companyXYZ.com, einkauf@companyXYZ.com, verkauf@companyXYZ.com. The group mailboxes 138-144 are managed via a customer relationship system (CRM system) 146. The internal persons A, B, C are provided the ability to see all requests and replies via the group mailboxes 138-144 using a web-based system, for example. Even if the external person E dispatches several messages N7-N10 to the respective group mailboxes 138-144, they are combined via the CRM and made transparent toward the inside. The reply N4 of person B is provided by the CRM system 146 with the group e-mail address appropriate for person B (in the shown example verkauf@companyXYZ.com) as the sender and is sent to person E via the internet. However, using the CRM system 146 is expensive and does not cover personal e-mail addresses.
Another known work-around illustrated in FIG. 8 is to keep the personal mailboxes 104, 110, 116 addressable from the outside but allow internally reciprocating at least read rights for other personal mailboxes. As illustrated in FIG. 8, the mail client 106 of the internal person 108 (person A) has direct access to that person's own mailbox 104 (see solid line between mail client 106 and mailbox 104), i.e., can see incoming and outgoing messages that are deposited in this mailbox or can display them for person A as well as transfer messages that are entered by person A to mailbox 104 of person A for transmission, whereupon mail server 100 provides the message with a message header including the mailbox address of mailbox 104 and sends the message. At the same time, mail client 106 has read access to mailboxes 110, 116 of persons B and C (see dashed lines between mail client 106 and mailboxes 110, 116), i.e., can see messages that are deposited in these mailboxes 110, 116 and display them for person A. The same applies analogously to the communications of persons B and C, i.e., the mail client 112 of person 114 (person B) has direct access to that person's own mailbox 110 (solid line) and read access to the mailboxes 104, 116 (dash-dot lines) of persons A and C, and the mail client 118 of the person 120 (person C) has direct access to that person's own mailbox 116 (solid line) and read access to the mailboxes 104, 110 (dotted lines) of persons A and B. Such a solution is associated with a loss of privacy and is also subject to the problem that, although in principle relevant messages to external persons can also be found on other personal mailboxes, they require a targeted search activity for every act of communication.
A purely manual solution would be to “share” an outgoing message internally by increasing the distribution group, for example. Existing functions of e-mail programs such as CC (carbon copy) or BCC (blind carbon copy) are used for this purpose. However, the CC method has the disadvantage that the distribution group is also revealed to the outside. The BCC method, which avoids this disadvantage, on the other hand increases the internal intransparency because none of the internal recipients know who else received this message. In addition, these solutions require increased discipline and attention in order to consistently select the correct distribution for each communication activity.
In summary, the work-around solutions used to date suffer at least in part from the disadvantages that they present an impersonal image to the outside, for example, or that they require strict, consistent handling by the persons involved.
One goal of the present invention is to eliminate at least in part the disadvantages in the prior art. One particular goal of the present invention is to create consistent communication activity with external participants that is transparent internally and not transparent to the outside.
According to the invention, this goal is achieved at least in partial aspects by the features of the independent claims. Advantageous embodiments and developments of the invention are provided in the dependent claims.